Should the Court, however, determine that it is within this Court's discretion to appoint a three-judge panel, and instruct that panel to accept the redistricting challenges set forth in the (now-withdrawn) Petition or to defer in light of the pending federal action. — Wisconsin Dept. of Justice, Response etc.*What do you call that, a dangling antecedent?
Maybe I need a grammarian and a logician. Or maybe the DoJ does.
* Another panel, the federal court in question, noted that the same author "skirt[ed] the line of being intemperate and unduly combative."
Which is nevertheless preferable to being incomprehensible, imho.
From the logic angle, it's an "if" with no "then."
ReplyDeleteYeah that's how it strikes me.
ReplyDeleteEven the sentence fragment has a scope ambiguity:
ReplyDeleteShould the Court, however, [determine that it is within this Court's discretion to appoint a three-judge panel,] and [instruct that panel to accept the redistricting challenges set forth in the (now-withdrawn) Petition or to defer in light of the pending federal action].
versus
Should the Court, however, determine that it is within this Court's discretion to [[appoint a three-judge panel], and [instruct that panel to accept the redistricting challenges set forth in the (now-withdrawn) Petition]] or [to defer in light of the pending federal action].
There's at least one more scope assignment to be had there, too, but I won't bother.
See this is why this blog has the best commenters.
ReplyDeleteLegal briefs often have that strained construct; whereas...whereas...whereas...resolved. But since this is the concluding sentiment, no "resolved" is forthcoming.
ReplyDelete